I take the view that absolutist rulers had more of a negative effect than a positive effect on their countries. The allowance of the unregulated and unrestricted power within the government led to countries meeting social, political, and economical downfall.
Louis XIV of France has been regarded traditionally as the best example of the practice of absolute monarchy in the seventeenth century. He had faults which included his desire for glory, increased royal power, and military power and this resulted in war. Louis XIV left France impoverished and surrounded by enemies, along with causing major losses of life and capital spent from the wars he waged by the end of his life.
Peter the Great was also an absolutist leader. Peter the Great strived for a powerful military force in Russia and he achieved this by raising taxes which resulted in imposing additional burdens on the Russian peasants. He …show more content…
He attempted to be an absolutist leader, but ultimately failed. He made very rash and poor decisions and tried to evade Parliament in the decisions he wanted to make such as levying taxes without Parliament permission. Radical Parliament members eventually got fed up with Charles I. A civil war was started in England and eventually England had Charles I executed for treason. Civil war and financial problems were the result of Charles I aspirations to become an absolutist leader in England.
In summary, Absolutist leaders caused major negative effects and burdens on their countries. There were very few positive effects that came out of the decisions absolutist leaders made, and the negative outweighed the positive. Louis XIV of France, Peter the Great of Russia, Frederick William the Great Elector, and Charles I of England were just some of the more notable rulers that caused destruction to their countries due to their self-centered aspirations for power and
Louis XIV of France has been regarded traditionally as the best example of the practice of absolute monarchy in the seventeenth century. He had faults which included his desire for glory, increased royal power, and military power and this resulted in war. Louis XIV left France impoverished and surrounded by enemies, along with causing major losses of life and capital spent from the wars he waged by the end of his life.
Peter the Great was also an absolutist leader. Peter the Great strived for a powerful military force in Russia and he achieved this by raising taxes which resulted in imposing additional burdens on the Russian peasants. He …show more content…
He attempted to be an absolutist leader, but ultimately failed. He made very rash and poor decisions and tried to evade Parliament in the decisions he wanted to make such as levying taxes without Parliament permission. Radical Parliament members eventually got fed up with Charles I. A civil war was started in England and eventually England had Charles I executed for treason. Civil war and financial problems were the result of Charles I aspirations to become an absolutist leader in England.
In summary, Absolutist leaders caused major negative effects and burdens on their countries. There were very few positive effects that came out of the decisions absolutist leaders made, and the negative outweighed the positive. Louis XIV of France, Peter the Great of Russia, Frederick William the Great Elector, and Charles I of England were just some of the more notable rulers that caused destruction to their countries due to their self-centered aspirations for power and